UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MARY DANN AND CARRIE DANN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the issue of individual aboriginal title should be addressed by the district court in the first instance.
The Supreme Court reversed a prior decision, noting that the Danns' claim of individual aboriginal rights had not been addressed by lower courts. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Aboriginal Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Our decision in this case, entered on May 19, 1983 and reported at 706 F. 2d 919, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Dann, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1058, 84 L.Ed.2d 28 (1985). At the conclusion of its opinion, the Supreme Court stated:
The Danns also claim to possess individual as well as tribal aboriginal rights and that because only the latter were before the Indian Claims Commission, the “final discharge” of § 22a does not bar the Danns from raising individual aboriginal title as a defense in this action. Though we have recognized that individual aboriginal rights may exist in certain contexts, this contention has not been addressed by the lower courts and, if open, should first be addressed below. We express no opinion on the merits.
Id. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1065 [footnote omitted].
The contention referred to by the Supreme Court, if open, should, we conclude, be addressed in the first instance by the district court. Like the Supreme Court, we express no opinion on the merits.
This case is accordingly remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. The motion of defendants for hearing in this court upon remand is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Canfield, 967 F.2d 443 (10th Cir. 1992)
-
Scurlock v. City OF Lynn Haven, 858 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1988)
-
State Corp. Comm'n OF the State OF Kan. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States, 787 F.2d 1421 (10th Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1985)
- United States v. Dann, 706 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1983)